Lense protection

[ebzdel]

I just got myself a Nikon D3300. Should I get some sort of lenses protector or will it distort the images? TIA

 

[480sparky41 40]

A hood won't distort your images one bit.

 

[ebzdel]

I was thinking more of one of the clear plastic sheet ones to help with scratches etc?

 

[Derrel]

A clear, screw-in protective filter COULD be purchased, but it really is not needed. The lens hood (also called lens shade) helps a lot. The front glass on a lens is surprisingly strong and scratch-resistant! REALLY, it is!!!! I shoot nothing with a filter. It's fine!

 

[The_Traveler]

If you want to add distortion, scratches and haze to your images, one of those clear plastic sheet ones will work fine.

We worry about lens quality, lens cleanliness, sensor cleanliness; why bollix all that up by putting a cheesy hunk of plastic (or glass) in front of it all?

 

[tecboy]

I didn't know there is a clear plastic sheet to protect the front element of lens.

 

[480sparky41 40]

I was thinking more of one of the clear plastic sheet ones to help with scratches etc?

I didn't know there is a clear plastic sheet to protect the front element of lens.

Saran Wrap?

 

[snowbear116 47]

Maybe it's like the screen protectors for cell phones.

A lens shade in combination with the lens cap will offer very good protection while walking around.

 

[Gary A.]

I use protective filters on all my lenses. I see it as a cheap form of insurance. A decent filter will not distort your images. But, protective filters will increase the propensity for lens flare/ghosting. The less coating on the filter ... the greater the propensity for flare. If you encounter a situation where the flare is undesirable you can unscrew/remove the filter. Remember that removing the protective filter will not eliminate flare, just minimize flare.

 

[Derrel]

STILL think a filter is needed to "protect" a front element? lol....

 

[jl1975]

STILL think a filter is needed to "protect" a front element? lol....

Oh my God! I had a hard time just watching that. I'm guessing the lens in the video was already damaged in some way and that is why they were willing to try hitting it with a hammer. But still, I was cringing the whole time.

 

[Gary A.]

LOL ... that is more antidotal than scientific. I have lost filters to impact and to corrosive substances. I've been able to remove the filters and keep on shooting. (Albeit, I've probably shot in slightly more hazardous environments than the average photog.) As I said cheap insurance. I also believe in Murphy ... I think a filter tends to keep Murphy from raising his ugly head and biting me in my front element. Granted, coated elements are very resistant to scratching, but there is nothing wrong with doubling up.

 

[Derrel]

15 DIRECT hammer blows with the nail-pounding face of the hammer..and not a scratch...

(I'm wearing a condom right now...in case I have sex later tonight.)

 

[paigew]

I just use the lens hood. It has saved my lens from many a catastrophe.

 

[JoeW]

A couple of decades ago, the conventional wisdom was to put a UV filter on the end of every lens "to protect your investment." I used to do that. But Derrel is right, it takes a lot to damage a lens and a lens hood is very good protection. And I've seen a range of articles where people will stack 3-4 UV filters and shoot, then take the same shot without any filter and the difference (even on a computer) is distinct and obvious.

So now, I have a default wide-angle zoom I use for shooting outside and it has a circular polarizing filter on it (which I sometimes take off). I will put NDF and graduated NDFs on my lens when the situation calls for it. But otherwise, I shoot naked.